Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Can a Christian believe in evolution and do Christians believe neanderthals were human?

281 replies

jinglebelly · 31/01/2011 21:34

Just curious

OP posts:
RuthyandBrendan · 02/02/2011 21:25

Christians do believe in evolution and dinosaurs, but it's important people discussing the issue classify what they mean by 'evolution' before writing off the argument for 'intelligent design', which is as logically plausible...

Darwin's theory of evolution speculated that one species could / has evolved into another: this is macro evolution. For example, fish into mammals. It's important to state here that this is STILL theory and, to date, has never been proven by ANY scientist / scientific body. Even Darwin concluded - not at the end of his life, but in the closing chapter of "The Origin of the Species", that there was room for belief in a 'Creator'.

Evolution on a micro level is where one species evolves within a species - this is absolutely proven, and happens every day. For example, today we are several inches taller on average than our Grandparents, and this is something that took place within a generation. Micro evolution is proven.

The problem is that we have all been taught - whether at school, by Stephen Fry on QI (!), or by osmosis - that macro evolution is proven. It's an interesting argument, but so full of holes that to accept it without question is like hanging up your brain ...something that Christians are accused of all the time for believing that there is purpose, design and phenomenal intricacies in life!

One of the major flaws with the theory of macro evolution is the contradiction it throws up, specifically in the animal kingdom, of the proven method of procreation 'survival of the fittest'. For a species to evolve into another would take a mutation in form - and not just one, but generation after generation - however, in the animal kingdom 'mutants' are weeded out! It's a pretty ruthless system, but animals only procreate with the 'best' of their species. A mutation would be seen as a weakness and it's highly unlikely therefore that that animal would be able to pass on its mutation to subsequent generations.

Another major flaw is the incredible discovery of DNA. A DNA code is specific to a creature and tells the body what it is, what it's made of - for example, a bird has something in its DNA which allows it to produce feathers, but this doesn't - can't - exist in reptile DNA.

The feather in itself is a mindblowing piece of technology - I for one can't believe that this is random, fluke or self-generated!

Whatever you believe about God / afterlife / spirituality - whatever - to say Christians are halfwits because of a belief in something greater than themselves and human intelligence, but then yourself accept a theory about our existence that is fundamentally flawed... who's the halfwit?? I'd rather have an open mind!

To fully accept and believe in the theory of macro evolution takes as much faith as it does a Christian to believe in God :)

Tortington · 02/02/2011 21:25

the theory of evolution - is afterall, a theory, like other theories

pointythings · 02/02/2011 21:30

Custardo,

I recommend Googling Karl Popper, with specific regard to falsification/verification.

A lot of people don't understand the theory of science.

tomhardyismydh · 02/02/2011 21:32

Yes there are alot misconceptions mainly due to ignorance.

I went to RC school and send my DC to Rc school and even 30 yrs ago I was taught the scientific theories of evolotion and dinosaours etc, more emphasis was on science than religious creation. They are all theories after all and can be taught along side each other.

Ruthy explains it far better than I could ever attempt to.

neither was I indoctronated by the church Grin.

Original poster
jinglebelly · 02/02/2011 21:32

pointythings - can you explain, is a scientific theory different to the way we use the word theory in day to day use?

OP posts:
AMumInScotland · 02/02/2011 21:33

jinglebelly - the problem is that often the "noisiest" Christians, are the minority rather than the majority. Most Christians believe that the Bible has to be read in a less literal way than you might assume. That doesn't mean it's not "true", but "truth" isn't the same as literal accuracy.

AMumInScotland · 02/02/2011 21:36

"A mutation would be seen as a weakness" - no, not if it's an improvement Hmm A mutation can be lots of things, we only think of it as a bad thing because of the gross levels of mutation which can be caused by eg radiation. Mutation = change.

AMumInScotland · 02/02/2011 21:37

Scientific theory = best explanation of the available facts at the moment.

Scientific hypothesis = idea I'd like to test out

JaneS · 02/02/2011 21:38

There's a difference between 'proof' and 'demonstration'. You can't prove anything in science, only in mathematics.

pointythings · 02/02/2011 21:45

Oooh Jinglebelly - OK, here's Popper in a nutshell. Still going to be long.

When you do scientific research, you start with a hypothesis. This is basically an assumption based on what you already know, about the question you are asking - to which you do not yet know the answer.

Popper states that it is almost impossible to veryfy a hypothesis (i.e., prove indubitably, based on physical evidence that it is true) but that it is much simpler to falsify one.

A classic example relates to swans. When you go about your daily life, most of the swans you see, will be white. When researching the colour of swans, your hypothesis will therefore be 'All swans are white'.

You can't vderify this, because you would have to carry on observing swans for the rest of your life and into future generations and that still would prove nothing, because a black swan might come along.

However, it can be falsified - and is, the moment you see a black swan.

So it is with the theory of evolution. As things stand now, it is still a theory, that is, a hypothesis. It is impossible to verify, However, it has so far not been falsified either - it would probably take God coming down from above and saying 'Actually, I did do the whole thing in 7 days' to do it, and even then Richard Dawkins would want proof of identity.

So according to Popper, until someone falsifies the theory of evolution as above, it is the best fit with what we know and so we have to assume that it is more likely to be true than any other theory.

As I recommended to Custardo, I'd recommend Googling Karl Popper for a better explanation.

All of the above applies to the concept of theory as used in science - we are much more slipshod with the concept in everyday life.

Original poster
jinglebelly · 02/02/2011 21:50

pointythings - thanks, that's a good explanation Grin

OP posts:
fannyfoghorn · 02/02/2011 22:00

There is an interesting article in this month's Fortean Times all about Neanderthals and their culture by Colin wilson. It looks at such artifacts as woven flower blankets in graves (suggesting a need to 'care' for loved ones who have passed on) and a carving of the moon (as a goddess) (so religious beliefs) and Wilson suggests that Neanderthals very likely had their own language. It is utterly fascinating.

I am not a Christian but I do believe in God and also in reincarnation. I think Neanderthals were human in as much as they laughed/loved/cried just like all our other human ancestors. They will have gone on to heaven when they died and have probably been reincarnated many times since then. They are all part of the plan just like others who have gone on before us. (Well that's my take on it!)

Every living thing, every blade of grass, is part of God's picture.

LilRedWG · 02/02/2011 22:04

I was very much told in Sunday School that the bible was literal and as such have struggled all my life to believe. This was backed up by a Jehovah's Witness teacher at secondary school.

Threads like this one are a great help. Thank you.

tomhardyismydh · 02/02/2011 22:12

LilRed I do belive but not 100% sure that jehovas accept exclusivly the creation theory and so dispell evolution.

LilRedWG · 02/02/2011 22:17

This particular lady definitely did.

LilRedWG · 02/02/2011 22:26

Not made myself at all clear. I believe in evolution but struggled with faith as how can the literal bible I was taught and evolution work together.

fannyfoghorn · 02/02/2011 22:53

LilREDWG, I can only speak from personal experience but I daresay that most Christians nowadays interpret the Bible liberally rather than literally.

I believe in God and the message of the Bible and also evolution. God made the world and everything in it but not in 7 days.

OracleInaCoracle · 02/02/2011 22:55

ds (5) asked me the other day why Noah didnt take the Dinosaurs in the Ark. somewhere in his head he reconciles the concept of god and religion and creation with evolution and science.

Tortington · 02/02/2011 23:00

i just said it was a theory.

wannabesybil · 02/02/2011 23:11

I gave up on Colin Wilson after reading a book where he confused St Augustine of Hippo and St Augustine of Canterbury. Easy for a casual reader but a bit pants if you hang an argument on it.

Also, re evolution of a feather - I thought they had managed to show how scales could change to feathers in a series of gradual steps, each step conferring advantages. I remember watching on tv and being impressed. The same with eyes, they have shown how eyes evolved, logically.

As a non scientist I find evolution persuasive. I think Intelligent Design has not been tested as rigourously as evolution and my inclination is that it is Creationism in a lab coat. I don't know how much peer evaluation (is that the phrase?) it has had.

And I think, as a believing, Bible reading, born again Christian, that a debate about whether evolution is Christian is missing the point. I believe that it belongs in the same category as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. For Christianity it is irrelevant.

And as a Bible basher, I feel that saying that evolution is incompatible with belief in God is limiting God. I don't feel comfortable with that.

MardyBra · 02/02/2011 23:56

This is going to end in tears and 999 post of people shouting at each other, isn't it.

FWIW my view is:

If there IS a God, why didn't he/she get it right the first time because let's face it, evolution is a random chain of events. And if such a god/goddess exists then he/she isn't that clever really - why not get it right the first time.

Morloth · 03/02/2011 00:13

What is 'right' MardyBra?

MardyBra · 03/02/2011 00:24

Well if a species has to change, then presumably it wasn't properly designed in the first place.

imo, I don't get this "I can believe in religion and in evolution" thing. If creatures have to evolve then they are obviously not created by an omnipotent deity therefore, if there is a god, then didn't optimise the design of creatures in the first place - ergo either God is incompetent or doesn't exist.

But I'm sure someone will come along who can argue it better than me......

Morloth · 03/02/2011 00:30

Environments change, therefore the 'right' design changes.

Morloth · 03/02/2011 00:33

The universe isn't static, it is a constant whirring dance, its funny isn't it? One person can look at the chaos and see the hand of an intelligent creator spinning the plates and another sees only random chance.

Who knows.